Nanthiya Sujijantarat1, Christopher S Hong1, Kent A Owusu2, Aladine A Elsamadicy1, Joseph P Antonios1, Andrew B Koo1, Joachim M Baehring3, Veronica L Chiang4. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar St, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA. 2. Department of Pharmacy Services, Yale-New Haven Hospital, 20 York St, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. 3. Department of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar St, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar St, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA. veronica.chiang@yale.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Both laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) and bevacizumab have been used successfully to treat radiation necrosis (RN) after radiation for brain metastases. Our purpose is to compare pre-treatment patient characteristics and outcomes between the two treatment options. METHODS: Single-institution retrospective chart review identified brain metastasis patients who developed RN between 2011 and 2018. Pre-treatment factors and treatment responses were compared between those treated with LITT versus bevacizumab. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients underwent LITT and 13 patients were treated with bevacizumab. The LITT cohort had a longer overall survival (median 24.8 vs. 15.2 months for bevacizumab, p = 0.003) and trended to have a longer time to local recurrence (median 12.1 months vs. 2.0 for bevacizumab), although the latter failed to achieve statistical significance (p = 0.091). LITT resulted in an initial increase in lesional volume compared to bevacizumab (p < 0.001). However, this trend reversed in the long term follow-up, with LITT resulting in a median volume decrease at 1 year post-treatment of - 64.7% (range - 96.0% to + > 100%), while bevacizumab patients saw a median volume increase of + > 100% (range - 63.0% to + > 100%), p = 0.010. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that patients undergoing LITT for RN have longer overall survival and better long-term lesional volume reduction than those treated with bevacizumab. However, it remains unclear whether our findings are due only to a difference in efficacy of the treatments or the implications of selection bias.
PURPOSE: Both laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) and bevacizumab have been used successfully to treat radiation necrosis (RN) after radiation for brain metastases. Our purpose is to compare pre-treatment patient characteristics and outcomes between the two treatment options. METHODS: Single-institution retrospective chart review identified brain metastasis patients who developed RN between 2011 and 2018. Pre-treatment factors and treatment responses were compared between those treated with LITT versus bevacizumab. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients underwent LITT and 13 patients were treated with bevacizumab. The LITT cohort had a longer overall survival (median 24.8 vs. 15.2 months for bevacizumab, p = 0.003) and trended to have a longer time to local recurrence (median 12.1 months vs. 2.0 for bevacizumab), although the latter failed to achieve statistical significance (p = 0.091). LITT resulted in an initial increase in lesional volume compared to bevacizumab (p < 0.001). However, this trend reversed in the long term follow-up, with LITT resulting in a median volume decrease at 1 year post-treatment of - 64.7% (range - 96.0% to + > 100%), while bevacizumabpatients saw a median volume increase of + > 100% (range - 63.0% to + > 100%), p = 0.010. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that patients undergoing LITT for RN have longer overall survival and better long-term lesional volume reduction than those treated with bevacizumab. However, it remains unclear whether our findings are due only to a difference in efficacy of the treatments or the implications of selection bias.
Authors: Nancy U Lin; Eudocia Q Lee; Hidefumi Aoyama; Igor J Barani; Daniel P Barboriak; Brigitta G Baumert; Martin Bendszus; Paul D Brown; D Ross Camidge; Susan M Chang; Janet Dancey; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Laurie E Gaspar; Gordon J Harris; F Stephen Hodi; Steven N Kalkanis; Mark E Linskey; David R Macdonald; Kim Margolin; Minesh P Mehta; David Schiff; Riccardo Soffietti; John H Suh; Martin J van den Bent; Michael A Vogelbaum; Patrick Y Wen Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Penny K Sneed; Joe Mendez; Johanna G M Vemer-van den Hoek; Zachary A Seymour; Lijun Ma; Annette M Molinaro; Shannon E Fogh; Jean L Nakamura; Michael W McDermott Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Victor A Levin; Luc Bidaut; Ping Hou; Ashok J Kumar; Jeffrey S Wefel; B Nebiyou Bekele; Jai Grewal; Sujit Prabhu; Monica Loghin; Mark R Gilbert; Edward F Jackson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tafadzwa L Chaunzwa; Di Deng; Eric C Leuthardt; Stephen B Tatter; Alireda M Mohammadi; Gene H Barnett; Veronica L Chiang Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Manmeet Ahluwalia; Gene H Barnett; Di Deng; Stephen B Tatter; Adrian W Laxton; Alireza M Mohammadi; Eric Leuthardt; Roukoz Chamoun; Kevin Judy; Anthony Asher; Marco Essig; Jorg Dietrich; Veronica L Chiang Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Andrew E Sloan; Manmeet S Ahluwalia; Jose Valerio-Pascua; Sunil Manjila; Mark G Torchia; Stephen E Jones; Jeffrey L Sunshine; Michael Phillips; Mark A Griswold; Mark Clampitt; Cathy Brewer; Jennifer Jochum; Mary V McGraw; Dawn Diorio; Gail Ditz; Gene H Barnett Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Paolo Palmisciano; Ali S Haider; Chibueze D Nwagwu; Waseem Wahood; Salah G Aoun; Kalil G Abdullah; Tarek Y El Ahmadieh Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-07-03 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: William C Newman; Jacob Goldberg; Sergio W Guadix; Samantha Brown; Anne S Reiner; Katherine Panageas; Kathryn Beal; Cameron W Brennan; Viviane Tabar; Robert J Young; Nelson S Moss Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-06-19 Impact factor: 4.506